KATHAYEE COTTON MILLS LTD Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is to quash Ext. P7 award of the 1st respondent, the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam passed in pursuance to an agreement Ext. P5 to refer the industrial dispute for decision by the 1st respondent as arbitrator. Two workmen in the service of the petitioner company were dismissed from service after a domestic enquiry on the finding that the workmen were guilty of the misconduct charged against them. Respondents 2 and 3 trade unions espousing the cause of the workmen raised an industrial dispute. White conciliation proceedings were pending before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam, both parties entered into Ext. P5 agreement as per the terms of which the dispute was to be referred for decision of the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam. Para.1 and 2 of Ext. P5 are extracted below:

(2.) The Management challenges this award on three grounds: (I) that the agreement is not published as required by S.10A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (2) the Management was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence in justification of the action taken against the workmen, and (3) the award has become unenforceable for the reason of the failure to publish the same as required by S.17 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) There cannot be any doubt that the agreement Ext. P5 to refer the dispute to arbitration is one tailing under S.10A of the I. D. Act. Ext. P5 conforms to the requirements of S.10A(1) of the Act. There was an industrial dispute existing and at a time before the dispute could be referred to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal under S.10, the employer and the workmen agreed to refer the dispute for arbitration by the 1st respondent and to abide by his decision, which, according to the agreement, is to be final and binding on both parties. Even though the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent has raised a contention that the agreement Ext. P5 does not fall within the scope of S.10A(1) of the I.D. Act, no such contention is raised by counsel appearing for the respective trade unions. The dispute between the parties related to the dismissal of two workmen. There cannot be any doubt that it is an industrial dispute. An industrial dispute can be resolved under the Act by a settlement in the course of conciliation proceedings .under S.12(3) or by a settlement otherwise than to the course of conciliation proceedings or by adjudication on a reference under S.10 or by arbitration referring the dispute for decision by an arbitrator as provided for under S.10A of the Act. It is clear from sub-sec. (1) of S.10A that the parties are free to agree to refer the dispute for arbitration at any time before the dispute is referred under S.10. Ext. P5 agreement arrived at during the conciliation proceedings did not settle the dispute between the parties. The dispute was left for decision by the 1st respondent. Such an agreement leaving the dispute for decision by an arbitrator does not amount to an industrial settlement during conciliation proceedings under S.12(3) of the Act. The same is the view expressed by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in R. K. Steels v. Their Workmen ( 1977 (1) LLJ 382 ). An agreement between the management and the workmen during conciliation proceedings to refer the issue relating to bonus for the decision of the Commissioner of Labour was held by the Full Bench in R. K. Steels' case as one falling under S.10A of the Act. I, therefore, overrule the objection by the learned Government Pleader that the agreement and the arbitration proceedings in the present case do not fall under S.10A.